Upcoming Events

Co-directors of CZAP and archaeological projects in the Mid-East for 30+ years. Pres. of RASHID Int.. Giving free public lecture on the world’s 1st farmers in Iraq + Iran from their excavations at the World Heritage Tentative List site of Bestansur

Before I start my spiel an important note to make is that I will refer to both 'Roman' and 'Byzantine' empires - during this period the entity we consider the Roman Empire transitioned into the one we call the Byzantine Empire - really, it's just a way of differentiating the Roman Empire of antiquity and the Empire of the medieval period. Both refer to the same political entity.

Anyway, around the time Christianity became the dominant faith in the Roman Empire (the 4th century CE), there was a sprawling hierarchy of Christian churches spanning the entire Empire, all of whom considered themselves part of the same institution. However, despite the remarkable practical organization of the Church, there were difficult theological issues that frequently split opinion and sparked violent conflicts between Christian communities and leaders of the Church. Because of the influence held by the Christian priesthood in Roman politics from the 4th century onward, these heated theological arguments spilled over into the political sphere and compelled the Roman Emperor to intervene. The council of Nicaea in 325 CE was the first example of this trend, in which the emperor Constantine oversaw a Council of Bishops that rejected the Arian movement. With the exception of Julian, all Emperors after Constantine were at least pseudo-Christian and as absolute rulers in the political sphere they were quick to assume final authority in spiritual matters as well. When they perceived conflict within the Church, they took the lead in organizing councils of bishops to sort out the problems, and were furthermore the ones who put the authority of the government behind the councils’ decrees.

The theological disputes in the early Church were just as vicious and intractable as those that would tear apart the Catholic Church during the Reformation many centuries later. However, in the case of the early disputes, the authority of the Roman Emperor was great enough that any Christian movement straying from the mainstream could be persecuted effectively and its proponents eventually silenced... I say eventually because not even the emperor could prevent these disputes from carrying on over decades or even centuries, and often one Emperor would not have the same religious views as his successor resulting in many consecutive reversals of policy!

The first significant movement against mainstream Christianity was the Arian heresy, originating in Alexandria in Egypt. Arianism was very influential in the Eastern part of the empire during the 4th century, and gained the support of several Emperors - however, its appeal was limited and eventually it was stamped out inside the Empire, although ironically most of the Germanic tribes that would later dismantle the Western Empire were Arian converts. The second great heretical movement in this period was Monophysitism, which occurred later and was far more widespread than Arianism - it was dominant in the majority of the far Eastern part of the Empire (eastern Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt). Monophysitism ceased to be a major issue within the Empire when these regions were conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century, although it’s arguable that 'aftershocks' of the Monophysite heresy contributed to the Iconoclast crisis in the 8th century... another heretical movement that caused serious unrest but was marginalized by the middle of the 9th century.

In the period between the 4th and 9th centuries CE the Roman Emperor remained the most powerful ruler in Christian Europe, even in the 8th and 9th centuries when the Empire was under constant, debilitating assault by the Arabs and the Bulgars. The Emperors maintained control over the Christian Church, which after the loss of the Eastern territories to the Muslims (including the eastern patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria), had two main spiritual leaders: the Patriarch in Constantinople and the Patriarch in Rome (i.e. the Pope). In this period both were under the influence of the emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople for obvious reasons (Constantinople was capital of the Empire), but also the Pope who after the 6th century relied on the Byzantine military for protection against the barbarian Lombards who had invaded Italy.

Thus, during this period the Christian Church remained united in a single, Orthodox faith. The presence of underlying tensions was obvious however, and the Roman Church was often extremely aggressive in its condemnation of developments in the East – on one or two occasions it had to be bullied into cooperation by military force. Without the union of these of these two regions in the political sense, the Church would have split much earlier. As it stood though, the Latin Church remained in the orbit of Constantinople until the end of the 8th century when the waxing strength of the Frankish Kingdom gave an opportunity to abandon the Byzantine Emperor and take on a new guardian: the king of the Franks. Although the final schism between the Latin and Greek Churches would take place over two centuries later in 1054, this political change in the 8th century marks the beginning of the great two-way division of the Christian faith between Greek (Orthodox) and Latin (Catholic).

So, to answer your question in short, it seems that Christianity was already splintering very quickly when it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. However, it was not until the relative decline in authority of the Byzantine Emperor that a major split (the Roman-Greek) became possible, in the 8th century. Monophysitism and related movements also split off permanently after the 7th century and remain the dominant Christian community in the Near East to this day. In response to your secondary question: Roman Catholicism should not be considered the original Christian denomination, but neither should it be considered an offshoot of Greek Orthodoxy. It's more accurate to see them both as branches off the same tree. The real "original" Christianity was lost as soon as Christianity became such a widespread religion spanning such geographically distant and diverse areas. The decentralization of the Christian Church, while arguably the root of its organizational strength, also contributed to the rapid divergence of doctrine between churches in different regions.

In addition to the Catholic and Orthodox churces there are a number of other types of Christianity, some that still exist today, that were separated from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Ethiopian, Armenian and Coptic churches come to mind. There were also ancient churches further to the east that have not survived to the present day. The simplest answer is that Christianity has always been many groups, it is just that certain churches in certain areas and eras have been more successful at presenting themselves as the "one true church" than others.

Christianity has changed over time. Asking if the (contemporary) Catholic Church is the original Christianity is like asking if (modern day) humans are the original primates.

The first schisms, or rather dividing questions, seem to be about whether the old law was replaced by the new law--that is, whether Christians have to keep kosher and get circumcised. In the end the "Judaizing" trends lose here, and the Paulene trends win out. But even just looking at the New Testament (Acts and Paul's letters), we see that this was a question in the very beginning with (initially) Paul and Peter/James being associated with different factions. They weren't necessarily different "groups", but different factions. It is certainly a possible argument that the "original" Christianity were the Judaizers who expected Christians to continue to follow the "old" law (that doesn't mean it's true, I'm merely pointing out that that argument can be made to demonstrate how hard it is say what the "original" Christianity is).

It really depends on what line you follow. Historically, Protestants claimed to have "restored" original Christianity that was "corrupted" by the "pagan" Catholic Church by getting rid of the "superstition". Catholics, on the other hand, claim unbroken "apostolic succession" which means every Catholic bishop has been laid hands on by another Catholic bishop all the way back to the apostles themselves. It's an unbroken line all the way back to Saint Peter, and obviously through him, Jesus (think, again, like our unbroken line back to earlier primates). However, most if not all of non-Protestant Churches claim the same thing, usually through different apostles. Wikipedia has a list of those claims but, for the most part, there's no real reason to doubt any of them (or trust any of them) more than any of the others. Like humans being one branch of some ancestor primate and chimpanzees being another, Catholics are one branch descended from original Christianity and Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syriacs, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians), and the Church of the East (the Nestorians) are some of the other major branches to evolve, directly and slowly, out of the original Christianity.

Edit: And generally each one of those branches started with a heresy (Are the three persons in the trinity the same substance or similar substances? Did the Father create the son, or has the son always existed?, etc.). Splits occurred when one side gained power in one place, and one side gained point. Usually this was done when local (secular) leaders supported one side over another in one place, and their rivals supported the other side (though not always). But the point is, almost all of these splits were (at least nominally) over questions not dealt with in original Christianity.

Christianity was a diverse religion in the early years. In 325 Emperor Constantine I called the council of Nicea, which was the first ecumenical council. If you come from an Episcopal, Anglican, or Catholic background you are probably familiar with the Nicean Creed, which is the basic doctrine of faith. While being a positive declaration of faith, the creed is also directly aimed at rejecting the assertion of the "Arian Heresy", a group who asserted that the Son was created by the Father, and thus was finite, and thus was inferior to the Father. Hence the line in the creed "begotten, not made ... one in being with the father". This is all just a few decades after the "Donatist Heresy", which involved a group in Northern Africa who believed that the sacrificial value of the host could be invalidated by the earthly sinfulness of priests. Basically, the early church had a lot of divergent beliefs on specific elements of faith, while all believing in the story of Jesus and the sovereignty of God, leading to the very detailed treatise on faith and good praxis that would come to define the Catholic church.

So there is a constant process of weeding out divergent beliefs, and this would continue throughout the history of the church, usually stemming from Christianity being introduced to peoples with their own existing religions who tended to wind up with something in between. Until the reformation, there were no real successful splinter groups (though there was a very interesting escapade when the Papacy decided to move from Rome to Avignon, and the Year of the Three Popes, and a lot of political infighting).

The real story you are looking for, through, is the "Great Schism" (aka The East-West Schism because of confusion with the schism in the Roman Empire). This was the creation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which would itself branch out into the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, and a number of other churches. I am a lot less familiar with eastern Christianity, but the gist is that a series of disagreements in praxis and belief forced the church in two, each side having enough adherents to resist pressure and continue to exist. This process began as early as the late 5th century, but hostility would continue to grow for centuries. It encompassed issues as varied as the use of the Greek or Latin language, leavened or unleavened bread, and whether Jesus was "fully human and fully divine" or of one single nature. I'm sure somebody else can speak on the East-West Schism, but the point is that the Catholic Church wasn't really at any point the ONLY Christianity. It was constantly having to deal with challenges to specific elements of doctrine internally and coexisted with the eastern Church, even if it didn't easily give up claims of authority over the east.

This was the creation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which would itself branch out into the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, and a number of other churches.

"Creation" is kind of misleading. Rome and the individual regional churches that became "Orthodox" had been separate entities since their inception, and what happened in 1054 was a break in communion, not a formal founding of a separate religion.

You are correct, thank you. My original post had a poor choice of language. It was not a new church or a new founding, but a long history of push and push-back between independent churches, even if Rome took a long time to give up on trying to claim authority.